Originally Posted By dshyates And the hits keep coming: <a href="http://newsok.com/3-year-old-dies-after-accidental-shooting-near-guthrie/article/3738015" target="_blank">http://newsok.com/3-year-old-d.../3738015</a>
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 This is what set me off. "Stephens said the call came in just after noon. He said criminal charges will not be filed." Bullcrap, file charges against the irresponsible gun owner..
Originally Posted By ecdc Exactly. The gun owner should go to prison for a long, long time. If most gun owners are so "responsible," they'd support that kind of change in our laws.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Bullcrap, file charges against the irresponsible gun owner.." How can the government file charges against someone who hasn't broken any laws?
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 "Bullcrap, file charges against the irresponsible gun owner.." How can the government file charges against someone who hasn't broken any laws?<< I am an advocate for making it a felony for irresponsible gun owners. It may not be a crime now, but it should be...
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The government could at least file civil charges to recoup the costs of emergency responders, hospital care and add some punitive liability in there as well. And it should be a felony to leave any weapon where it can be accessed and fired by a minor, and punishment must include a revocation of any right to purchase, own or store firearms.
Originally Posted By andyll <<How can the government file charges against someone who hasn't broken any laws?>> Who says laws were not broken? Not the article. You read all the time that adults are charged with some type of child abuse if a an unsupervised toddler gets hurt. I guess it's different if it's a gun.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Good point. If an unsupervised child jumps into a swimming pool, say, the adult who should have been supervising can be held liable. If an unsupervised child shoots himself with an easily accessible and loaded gun, "criminal charges will not be filed" is the typical response. My uncle almost killed my mom by playing with a gun when they were about 9 and 10 years old. I like my uncle, but the thought has crossed my mind when I've seen him "I almost didn't exist, thanks to you!"
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt <<How can the government file charges against someone who hasn't broken any laws?>> "Who says laws were not broken? Not the article" I'm assuming that the authorities would press charges if laws had been broken.
Originally Posted By ecdc Exactly. We have negligence laws around driving, around parenting, etc., but not around gun ownership.
Originally Posted By dshyates "I'm assuming that the authorities would press charges if laws had been broken." Nope. Laws were broken, but with accidental shootings, the prevailing wisdom is that the parents have suffered enough because they lost a child. So no charges are filed. Now the poor family who lost a child because of an improperly secured swimming pool. They get the book thrown at them.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Laws were broken..." What law was broken in this case? I'm ignorant about guns, so please educate me.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <with accidental shootings, the prevailing wisdom is that the parents have suffered enough because they lost a child. So no charges are filed. Now the poor family who lost a child because of an improperly secured swimming pool. They get the book thrown at them. > Yep. I'm guessing the NRA is stronger than the NSPA. Worth noting is that the child in this instance was not in his own home, but the home of a relative. So the owner of the gun that killed the kid was not his father (presumably an uncle or cousin). But even here, no charges are filed.
Originally Posted By andyll <<What law was broken in this case? I'm ignorant about guns, so please educate me>> Sounds like a clear case of child endangerment to me. General definition: "Child endangerment includes both placing a child in physical danger and exposing a child to dangerous or illegal adult situations." Search Google News for 'Child Endangerment' to see the types of things that consist of child endangerment. Hard to imagine giving a 3 year old access to a loaded weapon does not fit.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper When I took my younger children into other people's homes I had to be cognizant of the fact that the homes were probably not "child proof" to my standards if they did not have kids. So, you can certainly consider that the parent was more culpable than the uncle.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I don't know about "more culpable." If my sister dropped off her toddler at my place, as far as I'm concerned, I'M responsible. If I had a gun, I should damn sure make certain he can't access it. And while I may not move all my toxic under-the-sink stuff, it's also my responsibility to make sure he doesn't go rummaging in there.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper But a parent has that level of thinking more than an uncle does. My friends could tell me all they wanted to about the work and challenges of parenthood but until I lived it that was meaningless. Look at the stories of athletes and others who inadvertently try to carry a go through airport security. They are desensitized to the fact they have a gun and I suspect something similar occurred to the uncle. I'm happy blame them both, but I think the parent is ultimately responsible.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt At what point is it endangerment? Suppose the owner simply forgot to put his or her gun away and the family stopped by for a visit unannounced? Obviously I'm for strict gun controls, but if it's legal to own the type of weapon this person had, then what regulations are in place where this happened that governs their placement in the home or around children? Something tells that there aren't any, which is probably why the authorities are not pressing criminal charges.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer We require kids to be in car seats nationwide. We could at least require guns to be locked up or to have trigger locks in place.
